Network request detail

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that the response body may be truncated ('start of it, if text'), which is genuine value not derivable from the schema, but it says nothing about permission requirements, binary/non-text payloads, or how multiSlot affects retrieval.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single tight sentence plus one clarifying clause, with the return content front-loaded and the id provenance appended. No wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema or annotations exist, so the description must define the result, and it does list the three payload sections plus the truncation caveat. It stops short of covering tab/slot targeting behavior or binary responses, but for a single-request inspection tool this is nearly sufficient.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and all six parameters are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description only adds the cross-tool linkage for 'id'; it says nothing extra about tab, slot, body default, or multiSlot beyond what the schema already states.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (shows) and precise resource (one request's headers, sent data, response body), and distinguishes itself from sibling browser_network by explaining that the id comes from that tool. An agent can tell exactly what this returns versus the network list tool.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The clause 'id is the n-number from browser_network' implicitly routes the agent to call browser_network first, which is clear sequencing context. No explicit when-not or alternative for inspecting requests, but the workflow is unambiguous.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.